right, because when facing down a brutal regime, non-violent resistance has never worked. On the one hand, you claim the Scholls would have caused chaos, but on the other hand, they're doomed to fail because they don't believe in violence? That suggests to me a very traditional view of the world.
Syrian rebel cuts out man's heart and eats it raw. Let's arm this guy! The British were not a brutal regime. If they were, you wouldn't even know who Ghandi was. Try pulling what Ghandi did in Syria, see how far you get.
Except that Iran and Turkey have vastly different histories, populations, etc. These aren't people that have been oppressed by a dictator who gets his power from the west. These are people that have lived for generations in a secular situation. They don't want to back to the time before the 1920's. Sure some do, but there is no reason to think that most do.
If the people followed what Ghandi did in Syria the way they did in India you would have the same results Ghandi had. You can't have a nation survive when nobody will work or produce anything. The British may not have been the most brutal regime, but they certainly were brutal.
I'm talking about the context of World War 2. There was no reason for the Allies to help the Scholls because they weren't armed like other resistance groups were, and the Allies didn't care so much about establishing democracy as they were about defeating/destroying German militarism. As for Gandhi? Once again, this ties into my point. The end of the Empire for India was incredibly confusing, chaotic, and many, many people died as the Muslims and Hindus began killing each other. Now, was this chaos worth bringing about an end of the Empire? Pretty much yes, but don't act like the chaos didn't exist, and more importantly, it's not like India significantly culturally evolved as a result, it just meant that the dictatorship disappeared - the same is frankly true of both Germany and Japan, as Germany remained nostalgic, if not fond towards Hitler until the late 60s, and while Japan is nowhere as bad as WNBA or other Asians want to pretend it is for their domestic consumption, it's not great. We can make the dictatorship disappear in Syria, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those remaining possess the values or ideals which we want - in which case, why should we help them? Why? Should a bank "hope" that the person they're giving money to has a sound business plan? Should a business "hope" that the person they're hiring is actually competent? The Athenians during the Melian Dialogue observed that hope is the last refuge of the weak or deluded. America is not the former, and it hopefully won't be the latter.
USA needs to stop getting into other countries affairs. Why can't the government just worry about issues that our on our land instead of everything overseas? Stop going into the Middle East, stop giving Israel a stranglehold control over the world, and stop being money hungry for oil that you will never get.....
I'm not acting like the chaos didn't exist---quite to the contrary. My postings on this subject have always ranged from musing about how Americans, of all people, considering American history, could take initial signs of chaos as signs that any revolution with democratic elements in the area is destined to fail. Your entire argument ties into my point---was it worth it in the end? Yes. Now, you can try to justify why the end of the British Empire is a nobler goal than the downfall of a bloody tyrant whose family has murdered civilians on a mass scale at least twice now.
History is written by the victors--- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities In India specifically--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–1878
Giving small arms to Syrian rebels of dubious persuasions is all about occupying Iran and Hezbollah. If they are fighting in Syria, they are not fighting as much in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. I assume we intend for the "rebels' to be a continuing guerrilla irritant while not having enough firepower to threaten Israel. It sucks for real people getting really blown up but it's small potatoes on the scale of world politics. What we, the US, should be doing is piling in all the humanitarian aid we can and taking care of the refugees. While this may have started out as a popular uprising with a secular component, it has devolved into another Sunni/Shia war for the dominance of world Islam. Other than placating our oil dealers, the US has no allies here short of the secularist and Christians that probably just need wholesale evacuation. As infidels, we cannot effect a resolution. The only end I see is if the Soviet Union brokers an end to the Assad regime but I can't imagine what governmental format would satisfy the opposing religious groups. Given Northside's time frame for evolving a democracy that may be the endgame in what, 50 years when the fervor of organized religion has waned.
#2 is false. The media focuses on the small Islamist sects of fighters, but doesn't point out this is an extremely small percentage of overall fighters. That is what we see on TV and scares the crap out of people.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>While the al-Qaeda-allied Syrian rebels murder Christians & desecrate churches, Pres Obama sends them weapons to continue their rampage.</p>— Justin Amash (@justinamash) <a href="https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/345997501796593666" data-datetime="2013-06-15T20:13:27+00:00">June 15, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> I still don't understand by what authorization Obama is allowed to send arms to Syrian rebels.
It was convenient to confirm 'Chemical Weapons' just as the rebels were losing major ground. The initial fear was that this conflict would spread and it possibly might still but appears unlikely. This war is taxing on Iran and Lebanon. Certainly in the interest of a few that this continues. I'm guessing this is going to be the future of wars. That's why we need everyone to have nukes, nobody will screw around with anyone else if everyone had it. There would have to be some exceptions though obviously.....
There is no way to know where the various groups allegiances lie, or how they will change with perceptions of power. I'd bet religion still wins there.
Also, while we're at it, Iran will send 4000 Guard troops to aid Assad. I've taken the approach that the proper American response is in fact make sure that no one wins, and let Assad and the Islamic extremists bleed each other out. This also has the positive effect of putting further strains on the Iranian economy given Western sanctions, and we need to pressure them as much as possible in order to have real discussions on their nuclear program. Whether the current Obama policy will do that, I don't know, and really no one who posts here does, but I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt given his track record.
